If Prince William adopted a child

[Ibelieveinfairytales]

If Prince William adopted a child would they have a claim to the throne?

If I remember correctly, Princess Charlotte of Monaco, Prince Rainier's mother, was adopted. She was in line as heir but gave up her right to suceed in favor of her son.

Would it be possible for this to happen in the British succession too?

[vittoria]

I cannot speak for the royal family with any authority, but I believe that an adopted child would have no claim to the throne. Fairly recently, it was decided that the adopted children of aristocratic families would enjoy the courtesy titles normally given to daughters and younger sons (i.e., an adopted daughter of an earl would become "Lady Whoever," and an adopted son would be "The Honorable Whoever"), but adopted children still can't inherit peerages. I could be wrong about that, of course.

It's too bad, since an inability to produce a biological male heir has caused rather a lot of trouble in royal families over the centuries. Perhaps royal families should take a leaf from the book of the ancient Romans; by the early 1st century, and at the top of society, whether patrician or plebeian, they were all interrelated anyway, and adoption into a new gens was considered quite acceptable, especially if a "pater" didn't have an heir.

[wendy]

One current example comes to my mind concerning royal adoption: Norway's Crown Prince Haakon adopted his wife's son, Marius, but Marius is not in the line of succession.

It just occurred to me that having royal blood doesn't always place a child in the line of succession. Case in point: Prince Albert of Monaco's two out-of-wedlock (sorry for the outdated phrase) children he had with two girlfriends.

[Ibelieveinfairytales]

Nov 14, 2008 15:22:56 GMT wendy said:

One current example comes to my mind concerning royal adoption: Norway's Crown Prince Haakon adopted his wife's son, Marius, but Marius is not in the line of succession.

It just occurred to me that having royal blood doesn't always place a child in the line of succession. Case in point: Prince Albert of Monaco's two out-of-wedlock (sorry for the outdated phrase) children he had with two girlfriends.

Good point about Marius. I hadn't thought of that. He's considered a member of the royal family though. I wonder though, when he becomes king, will Prince Haakon grant Marius some type of title?

Prince Albert's children would be in line if he had married the children's respective mother's. This would have legitimized them and therefore they would be in a position to suceed. This isn't likely to happen for either child. Could Albert adopt his own child? There is a precedent in the Monaco family for this. Princess Charlotte (Rainier's mother) was the illegitimate daughter of Louis II.

Vittoria, I agree that adoption would solve some succession problems but I'm not sure that adoption should be completely allowed in a royal family in order to protect the line. Wouldn't that be taking the easy way out? (Easy being relative to the royal advantage in cutting through the red-tape). There would be no pressure or need to marry. Adopting a male child could downgrade any biological female children.

Then what would happen if Prince William adopted a child from another country? While it seems to be the norm for celebrities, people might not be so open to the idea of Prince William doing so.

[vittoria]

Ibelieveinfairytales, I doubt very much that, in this day and age, anyone outside of Japan would consider the adoption of a male heir if a female heir already existed. I was referring to a situation in which the ruler (male or female) had been able to produce no biological heirs whatsoever.

[hovite]

Nov 13, 2008 23:46:47 GMT vittoria said:

adopted children still can't inherit peerages

That is quite right. An adopted child has no right of succession either to a peerage or the crown.

Nov 13, 2008 23:46:47 GMT vittoria said:

an inability to produce a biological male heir has caused rather a lot of trouble in royal families over the centuries. Perhaps royal families should take a leaf from the book of the ancient Romans

Although succession by adoption is not possible in Britain, it is recognized elsewhere. In both Monaco and Sweden it has occurred in the past, and it still happens in Germany. A recent, if rather complicated, example is provided by Bavaria. The head of the family is Prince Franz, Duke of Bavaria, but he has a younger brother Prince Max, who succeeded to the title Duke in Bavaria in 1965, because had been adopted by a distant cousin Ludwig Wilhelm, Duke in Bavaria. But Prince and Duke Max has no sons, just daughters, so his ducal title will become extinct, unless he also adopts someone. Meanwhile, in Saxony, the head of the royal house, Maria Emanuel, Margrave of Meissen, has apparently adopted his sister's son, Alexander de Afif, as his heir. Succession by adoption was also historically important in India and China.

[HRISMH Duke Rico]

At present the only way for an adopted member of the royal family to be included in the list of succession is if that person was already in the line of succession. (eg The Earl and Countess of Wessex die, William could adopt the viscount (who would be the 2nd earl) and Lady Louise. They would not be able to precede the York princesses or their descendants.

I don't think that Monaco allows for adoptees to succede anymore. If they still do the rules would be the same as they were prior to 2002, where a younger biological child would precede them in the line.

[vittoria]

Hovite, your information is interesting, but I must point out that the adoptions you cite have occurred within titled families. That is, a prince could adopt a young cousin who was also a prince. Few people in the past would have objected to that practice, since the adoptees in question were of royal or aristocratic blood and sometimes already had titles.

The original question concerned the possibility that Prince William might adopt a child -- what status would such a child have? My view is that he or she would be loved but would have no succession rights, just as the adopted children of peers have no such rights. A courtesy title could be granted, since the adopted children of peers now receive them, but no more.

As for young Marius in Norway, I am not aware that he has been officially, legally, adopted by his stepfather, the Crown Prince. His own father is, after all, very much alive, and Marius participated in his father's wedding not so long ago. I have a Norwegian friend who says that it is very unlikely that Marius will be granted a title of any kind. The Norwegians are not as hung up on titles as the British are, and even the British have been trying to limit the proliferation of titles since George V's tenure on the throne. Within the past 15-20 years, they have stepped up their efforts.

[observer]

Generally, Constitutions are quite specific about who can inherit. In the case of Norway, for example, the Constitution states: "The order of succession is lineal, so that only a child born in lawful wedlock of the Queen or King, or of one who is herself or himself entitled to the succession may succeed, and so that the nearest line shall take precedence over the more remote and the elder in the line over the younger."

In the case of the UK, and countries like Canada, inheritance is based upon the 1701 Act of Succession, which does not mention adoption.

In the case of Japan, adoption is no longer possible by any member of the Imperial Family.

[Ibelieveinfairytales]

So what would happen if William and his wife were to have no biological children and adopted? Would the laws Act of Succession have to be changed or would it not be allowed?

I would think if the adoption wasn't recognized that it could cause quite a bit of controversy amongst adoption advocates.

[HRISMH Duke Rico]

It's the Act of Settlement that determines succession to the British throne. The Act specifies that the sovereign must be the 'heir of the body' (a blood descendant) of the Electress Sophia. If William only had adopted children who were not already in the line of succession (see my previous post) or he adopted children already in the succession and wanted them to have rights as though they were his biological children, then they (William and the parliaments that need to make rule changes independently of Britain) would need to agree to abolish the Act of Settlement and legislate new succession laws.

As it is now, the adopted children could only get titles via Letters Patent, and can only inherit the personal property of William

[vittoria]

There is currently a movement to overturn the 1701 Act, insofar as Roman Catholics and marriage to Catholics are concerned. There has also been discussion regarding sex -- that is, some people want the eldest child, male or female, to inherit. My guess is that these changes will be made relatively soon, but there has been no discussion concerning adopted children, and I don't expect there to be one. Legally speaking, if William married and he and his wife were unable to produce biological children, then the succession would pass to Prince Harry and any children that HE produced. If Harry had no children, then Prince Andrew's line would inherit, unless the sex bar were removed, in which case Princess Anne's line would take precedence.

On the other hand, it could be decided that "grandfathering" would be inappropriate and that female inheritance would not be applied retroactively, in which case Anne's line would continue to rank below both Andrew's and Edward's, even though both princes are younger than she is and both have daughters.

[HRISMH Duke Rico]

If they were to change to first born in britian, I'd be inclinded to think that they would do it in a way that only affects the current positions of Edwards children, since Anne has known for a long time that she was going to be placed after her brothers and their descendants. Lady Louise (aka to some Princess Louise ) probably don't understand where she and her brother are in the line at present.

[The Chief of]

Interesting...

I would hope that if the laws were to be amended to rearrange succession, the people who re-write the laws would make it to where everyone were created EQUAL. In doing so, I would say that if it is made to be EQUAL primogeniture, they would make Anne as the to-be-Queen (aka Princess of Wales?), otherwise they would be doing nothing more than snubbing women, especially Prince Anne. They would be completely passing a woman for a man? Isn't that what they are trying to abolish? I do not understand how they could justify completely and utterly ignoring and surpassing the EQUAL part of EQUAL PRIMOGENITURE. If they conclude that all person are created equal in sex and inheritance, then how could they justly discount Anne based on her sex? In the Tribe I am a member of, we use Equal Primogeniture, where the eldest child of the High Chief (aka Prince/Princess) becomes the next High Chief or Queen upon the High Chief's death. We believe that this should be the law for every monarchy in the world.

[Aidan Work]

It was pretty common for childless monarchs in India to adopt one of their sibling's children as their heir.As long as the heir was related,they had succession rights to the throne.Even cousins succeeded their predecessors.

In the British Isles,adopted children have never had any claim to the throne or to a peerage title.For example,Jamie Lee Curtis & her husband (who is a hereditary British peer) have got adopted children.Therefore,they have no claim to inherit the peerage.

Aidan.